Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2217 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I work for a company that employs more than 1000 Trade plate drivers;

we travel all over the UK delivering and collecting vehicles for many different customers.

 

Many of the places we go to are quite remote, airfields and large compounds etc, there is not usually public transport to many of these places.

 

The only way we can complete our work is to work with other drivers, sometimes this is arranged by the company and sometimes we arrange this between ourselves.

 

When there is public transport it can often take a long time to travel between jobs, and quite expensive. Therefore, working with other drivers is normal.

 

I received the notice from Metropolitan police was about seven weeks after the incident asking me to identify the driver of the car at the incident time.

 

On average we will complete about three jobs a day, on that basis I would have driven about one hundred vehicles in average of three to four cars a day.

How many drivers I would have worked with is not possible to work out.

 

Under those circumstances I do not know anyone who could remember the details of a specific car or who they were working with at a specific time of the day seven weeks previously.

 

The company do not keep records of who works with who at any time, the only thing they are interested in is that all of the assigned work is completed on time.

 

I have asked many drivers if they can remember working with me on that day, none can.

I have looked at any written notes I keep; this has not helped.

 

I have checked my mobile phone to see who I spoke to around that day, nothing I have done has enabled me to identify who would have been driving at the time of the alleged incident.

 

Also the photographs sent to me earlier by the Police wasn’t clear enough to identify who was driving the vehicle at incident time.

 

I understand that the Police will ask for any information that will lead to the identity of whoever was driving, and in most cases it can be provided.

 

I have however read what the law says in this situation.

It clearly says that a driver/keeper cannot be guilty of failing to identify who was driving if they did not know with reasonable diligence.

 

It seems common sense to me that the law was written that way because of exactly this kind of situation. The law also says I am not required to keep records.

 

I accept that this is a very unsatisfactory situation, I remain willing to do anything I can to identify the driver concerned but I cannot see what else I can do.

 

Metropolitan Police write to me again saying that I have a legal responsibility to identify the , further action in this matter has been suspended for 14 days.

 

I do not know what I have to do with this,

 

Thanks

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your account here seems to be very detailed and very structured.

 

I think it is important to be totally upfront and if you explain yourself to the police in the way you have here then I don't see that they can do very much.

 

I think that you should write them a letter explaining the situation in the way you have here and also include photocopies of your notes for the relevant periods. Say to them that as much as you would like, you are unable to help them and that you believe that you have exercise more than reasonable diligence and that if the police are not satisfied with what you say then they should refer it to the CPS and if a decision is taken that it should go to court, that you will present precisely the same position and the same evidence in court.

 

End up with an apology that you are not able to help them any further

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Law your s172 offence is complete after 28 days of Service of s172. Police have notified you that you had 14 days to provide driver details.

Photo's are not meant to identify driver, only the vehicle Contravention. expect Police/CPS to reject Bankfodder's approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read Section 172 here:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

 

But I’ll try to save you a bit of trouble. Firstly this:

 

“Metropolitan Police write to me again saying that I have a legal responsibility to identify the [presumably, driver].

 

No you don’t. Under S172, unless you were the “person keeping the vehicle” at the time of the alleged offence (which seems unlikely from your description), your obligations fall under Section 2(b) of the Act and it says this:

 

2 (b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

 

The information which is in your power is very limited. You have no idea who was driving the car (whether it was you or not) and cannot help identify the driver. The defence of using “reasonable diligence” does not apply to those who are not keepers of the vehicle but only to those that are. You do not have to exercise any diligence but are simply obliged to provide whatever information “is in your power to give”.

 

It might be interesting to find out from the people you work for (who presumably received an earlier Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP)) how they decided that you were driving at the time (especially since they keep no records). Further than that I should reply to the request by saying that you do not know who was driving and you have no information in your power to give which may lead to identification of the driver.

 

The result, unless the police do a little homework (which is unlikely) will almost certainly be a prosecution under S172. The prosecution will have to show that either (a) you were the “person keeping the vehicle” (and so have obligations under part 2 (a) of the Act (which says “the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police”) or that, even though you were not the person keeping the vehicle, that you had information in your power to give. From what you say, either of those might prove to be a little difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your running a company or a transport logistics manager its your job to know who is driving what car at what time. That's your responsibility to work within the framework of the law. I would expect the company secretary to have the points and fine applied to them, and it will be a substantially larger fine and 6 points. That is one of the responsibility's of a company sec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's quite correct and a "body corporate" has to show that if no records were kept then the failure to do so was reasonable (Section 172 (6)). However, where the Registered Keeper is a company no points can be imposed on individuals within that company unless the prosecution can prove that the failure to identify the driver was a result of negligence or connivance on the part of a named individual. Normally failure to keep records does not go far enough to prove this point.

 

This, of course, does not help the OP very much. He potentially faces a S172 allegation because whoever runs the company he works for has seemingly nominated him as the driver by plucking his name from thin air. (I say this because if no records were kept and they deal with a large number of vehicle movements it seems inconceivable that somebody happened to remember who was driving the vehicle on this particular occasion).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not keeping proper records puts the company sec at risk with points.

A company I used to work for ran 21 7.5 tonne vehicles and around 8 transit style vehicles.

One of the transits was caught by a gatso. Because proper records of drivers using transitsvwere not kept she as company sec received 6 points and the company fined £1000

Link to post
Share on other sites

From re reading your post are you a manager or a driver?

If your a driver just deny you were the driver. Its then a prove it game. If the company has named you as the driver and you deny it then the company must provide evidence that you drove at time of infraction.

You state that they dont keep records so your innocent until proven guilty. Let it go to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously my info is out of date!

 

Not quite, if the court decide that s.172, (5) applies, then the officers of the company etc. can also be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly true that S172 (5) provides for the prosecution of individuals where the RK is a body corporate. I have been observing these matters for a number of years and in that time I have only seen one individual convicted in such circumstances. In that instance it was clear that the company knew perfectly well who was driving their vehicle at the relevant time and had connived with the driver to avoid the imposition of points (evidence was produced to support that contention). Normally a simple "failure to keep records" (the usual reason for S172 offences by companies) is insufficient.

 

However, none of this helps the OP. He will almost certainly face a S172 charge which he will have to defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Thanks for letting us know the outcome.

 

do you have any idea how I can reduce the six points?

 

You can't. The offence carries a statutory minimum of six points. It's a bit late now (unless you intend to appeal to the Crown Court against your conviction) but did you ever establish how the company came to identify you as the driver (since they don't keep records)? You really had the makings of a strong defence under the circumstances you described. Did you plead Not Guilty? If so, it would be interesting to learn what you did in response to the request for driver's details and how the prosecution proved their case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I plead Guilty. waiting for the Court paperwork to appeal againt the six point if possible.

 

Do not bother appealing. It will end in failure and will cost you a lot of money. As I said, the offence carries a minimum of six points. This is a statutory minimum, meaning it is enshrined in law. No court can award fewer than six points. (Before anyone suggests it I won't go down the road of "Special Reasons" not to endorse as they do not apply here). Having entered a guilty plea you have accepted the prosecution's case and so have no grounds for appeal against your conviction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...